JUDGMENT : D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J. Prayer: Appeal preferred under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 07.10.2021 made in W.P. No. 24752 of 2009. 1. The appellant/Writ petitioner joined the Central Reserve Police Force as a Group Centry on 11.04.2007. While so, he was sent to Avadi, on 13.06.2007, to undergo basic training with CRPF, RTC and there he fell ill and underwent treatment between 26.06.2007 and 02.07.2007. Thereafter, he availed the sanctioned leave from 03.07.2007 to 01.08.2007 and resumed the duty only on 02.08.2007. Again from 03.08.2007 to 07.08.2007, he was unauthorizedly absent. While so, on 20.08.2007, he was referred to the Mental Hospital on emergency basis and was admitted there between 23.08.2007 and 13.09.2007. From 14.09.2007, he was unauthorizedly absent and therefore, one month's notice as per Rule 5(1) of Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, was issued on 17.10.2007. Thereafter, by order dated 17.11.2007, the Writ petitioner's services were terminated. Challenging the same, the Writ petition was filed. Learned single Judge, by an order dated 07.10.2021, after considering the submissions made on behalf of the writ petitioner and that of the respondents, dismissed the writ petition, as against which, the present writ appeal is filed. 2. The only contention which is raised in the writ appeal is that even as per Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, one month's notice is mandatory. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the notice dated 17.10.2007 was not at all served on him. Even before the learned single Judge, the respondents had admitted that they have got no records in proof of service of said notice. This being the situation, once the respondents have failed to prove that they have served the mandatory one month's notice, the writ petition is liable to be allowed. 3. We have considered the said submissions and perused the materials on record. 4. It is seen that even though the respondents have pleaded that they have actually destroyed the records relating to service of notice, the learned single Judge has taken into consideration the averment made by the writ petitioner himself in Para-11 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that he received a letter directing him to join the service. From the files and from the submissions of the respondents, it is seen that there was no any letter which was sent to the writ petitioner directing him to join service and therefore it was only the show cause notice which is referred to by the respondents. 5. In that view of the matter, learned single Judge held that one month's notice i.e. notice dated 17.10.2007 having been served on the petitioner, there is no illegality or infirmity in the order of termination of service of the petitioner. We are in agreement with the said finding of the learned single Judge. 6. Accordingly, finding no merit, this writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.